Time Magazine blog claims Obama deliberately exaggerated atrocities to justify attacking Libya

[PurityOfEssence]

What makes this any more noble or excusable than Powell's glass vials or Cheney and the boys' mythical yellowcake?

Just how many hospitals were shelled? How many journalists raped? How many ambulances deliberately attacked?

Here's a clip:

"As it turns out, Gaddafi hasn't done enough to justify humanitarian intervention—despite their rhetoric to the contrary, the administration and human rights organizations admit that reports of potential war crimes remain unconfirmed. Instead, interviews with senior administration officials show that the rehabilitators convinced Obama to go to war not just to prevent atrocities Gaddafi might (or might not) commit but also to bolster America's ability to intervene elsewhere in the future."

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/03/20/why-the-u-s-went-to-war-inside-the-white-house-debate-on-libya/#ixzz1I85wKgaF

It's now time for a little research into these specific claims, but undoubtedly, the extremists among Obama's supporters will either denounce the messenger, deny the information or find a way to justify it.

Folks, this is serious. The continual through-line for the most resolute Obama partisans has been, from the beginning, a cry that his means are justified by the obvious goodness of the ends. To many of us, the "ends" we're seeing to date aren't up to snuff, and now, after chronic convivial timidity, the means are downright mean. It's also reckless: this is the most complex powder keg since the end of the Soviet Union.

I leave you with this question: if they KNEW that there were insufficient outrages to justify intervention, then what was the motive? We have been specifically told that the record of atrocities justified using the threats of a well-documented liar as truth, but if there really weren't "sufficient" outrages, then what was the real reason? If, as this article suggests, it's to rehabilitate the idea of humanitarian intervention, then are distortions of convenience acceptable?

[provis99]

1. Oil. n\t

[kristopher]

8. What meltdowns? nt

[killbotfactory]

2. There are plenty of atrocities you can view on youtube, twitter, and facebook

I doubt the rebels had time to fabricate videos of people carrying body parts of protesters blown in half by heavy ordinance, considering the circumstances.

[FreakinDJ]

4. That and Gaddafi said he was going to massacre the rebels on TV

[PurityOfEssence]

5. So what is he, a congenital liar, or an unimpeachable source?

He certainly doesn't shrink from threats, but is that the equivalent of acts actually perpetrated?

A tyrant will say all sorts of things to intimidate, but they also know that the world's watching. There's really no way to tell what would have happened had he taken Benghazi; we can get some idea by seeing what he does to other towns and cities he recaptures, but it's all guesswork.

The telling point is this: if the outrages were sufficient to spur us to action--not as a justification, but as a CAUSE--then they were sufficient. If the didn't rise to the level that would really whip us into the proper collective frenzy, then that's deception.

Facts are the important thing. I see lots of hearsay, so if a well-connected journalist with serious political connections is saying this, doesn't it deserve some scrutiny?

Hell, just for competence alone this is horrible: not having control over one's staff to keep truly dangerous things like this being said are hazardous to the well-being of the administration, regardless of the moral realities at hand.

[FreakinDJ]

12. By the shelling of innocent civilians the whole world took it at face value

pretty hard to argue with artillery shells dropping in on innocent civilians

[EFerrari]

15. Were they innocent civilians or were they armed insurgents?

We'll find out eventually.

[joshcryer]

17. How do you "shell discriminately"?

C'mon.

[Hannah Bell]

37. good question. and how do you bomb discriminately? sauce for the goose, etc.

[EFerrari]

40. Reading these stories is sort of a trip right now.

Reporters are using "civilians" and "rebels" almost interchangeably about the same people.

[Incitatus]

43. Should one be valued less than another?

An unarmed civilian or a person fighting against a murdering tyrant?

[EFerrari]

46. A person fighting is a combatant, not a civilian. Words mean things. n/t

[Turborama]

"unarmed civilian" is what they said. Do you know what the word "unarmed" means? n/t

[EFerrari]

51. And that poster was conflating unarmed civilians with combatants

just as a lot of these stories do.

[joshcryer]

55. And yet you avoided answering. Should they be valued any differently?

I assume yes?

[Turborama]

60. You do know how this recent uprising started in Libya, don't you?

I've only noticed you getting involved in discussions about it recently, so I'm not sure.

Just in case, it was started by unarmed civilians peacefully protesting and getting gunned down. For peacefully protesting.

Their subsequent reaction was not to just let him continue gunning them down, but to fight back as they are now.

Here's a few refreshers...

The 1st video posted on DU about this (notice how many replied to it): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=554439">Police Fire Live Rounds At Protesters In Benghazi, Libya (Graphic)

Another one a few days later (notice again how many people replied to it): http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=556257">"Non-stop" Gunfire In Tripoli, Libya's Capital

It could be argued that the first stirrings of unrest this year were in January: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4697432">Citizens storm residential units in Libya

Ignored LBN article from February 16: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4736194">(At least 2) Protesters die in Libya unrest

Another ignored one from the 17th: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4737047">Libya's antigovernment protests escalate on 'day of rage' against Muammar Qaddafi

The death toll increased to over 200 on the 17th: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4737916">Libya protests leave 24 dead

[PurityOfEssence]

80. Armed rebels are leading an assault with a human shield mob on a military position

Traditionally, irregular combatants have the courtesy to their countrymen to wear a colored bandana or arm-band or SOMETHING to distinguish themselves from real civilians. The rebels with the weapons are "in the front". There's at least one HEAVY MACHINE GUN, a loaded, tripod mounted, belt-fed, three-man HEAVY INFANTRY WEAPON that's being used. It's not mentioned at all, but it passes through frame RETREATING FROM THE TROOPS amid unarmed civilians at timecode 06:47.--. There's NO MENTION OF THIS AT ALL.

[joshcryer]

41. Laser guided bombs are far more discriminate than arty shells.

But you didn't know that, I presume.

[Hannah Bell]

44. i didn't realize cruise missles were guided by lasers which could distinguish between

khaddafi supporters & nice rebels.

[joshcryer]

53. Gaddafi supporters are those who walk away from a scene when they hear that the bombs are dropping.

;)

[Hannah Bell]

58. because nice rebels don't know what bombs are?

[ProSense]

3. Utter nonsense

Thorough investigation urged over Libya rape case

The Libyan authorities must thoroughly investigate the case of a woman who said she had been raped by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, Amnesty International said today.

“Iman al-Obeidi’s allegations are stomach-churning. The Libyan authorities must immediately launch an independent and impartial investigation and bring those responsible to justice if the allegations are well-founded,” said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Director

“It is extremely disturbing that Iman al-Obeidi was forcibly dragged away by Libyan security officials when she tried to speak to journalists. The authorities must say where she is now and guarantee her safety and well-being. If she is being detained, she should be released immediately."

"The Libyan authorities have a long record of silencing those who dare speak out against human rights violations. It is all the more worrying that they did not hesitate to do this, using heavy-handed methods, despite the presence of the international media."

Iman al-Obedi was detained on Saturday after bursting into a Tripoli hotel where international journalists had gathered and saying she had been raped.

Rape used 'as a weapon' in Libya

As Libya's opposition fighters push west, doctors are uncovering more victims from the front line.

Several doctors say they have found Viagra tablets and condoms in the pockets of dead pro-Gaddafi fighters, alleging that they were using rape as a weapon of war.

They say they have been treating female rape survivors who were allied with pro-democracy forces.

Furthermore, 175 people, including doctors, have been reported missing from Ajdabiya, and many have now been found to have been killed.

Human Rights Watch.

Update: The Security Council voted on March 17 to impose a no-fly zone over Libya and authorized the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, with the exception of foreign occupation. In response, Human Rights Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth said: “For the second time in a month, the Security Council has defied expectations and risen to the occasion by making clear that all options are on the table to prevent mass atrocities in Libya. We hope that from now on, the Security Council will consistently live up to its duty to protect civilians in Libya and beyond.”

(New York) - The Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's violent crackdown on protests and his long record of serious abuses raise grave concerns for the safety of the civilian population in Benghazi and other eastern cities as the fighting in Libya shifts eastward, Human Rights Watch said today.

The international community, and especially the UN Security Council meeting on March 17, 2011, has a responsibility to use necessary and appropriate measures to protect civilians from large-scale atrocities, Human Rights Watch said.
"Libyan security forces' possible capture of Benghazi heightens concerns of more abuses as we've seen elsewhere in Libya, including killings and disappearances," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "The world should not ignore the serious abuses by Libyan security forces over the past month, as well as Gaddafi's demonstrated disregard for human rights over four decades."

<...>

Amnesty International

<...>

Have Libyan forces been respecting international humanitarian law?
Amnesty International is troubled by reports that Libyan government forces have been bombarding rebel-held cities and towns, including through the use of artillery. In a densely populated urban environment, artillery cannot be used in a way that properly distinguishes between civilians and fighters. Its persistent use in these circumstances violates the prohibition on indiscriminate attack.

There have also been unconfirmed reports that Libyan airstrikes directly targeted civilians or were indiscriminate. Amnesty International is still working to verify these reports. We have received worrying reports of ongoing shelling or air strikes in several towns and villages where civilians are likely to have been at risk, and which are effectively cut off from the rest of the world because telephone networks have been disconnected. There are serious concerns for the fate of the population trapped in these areas.

While the use of aircraft to attack military targets may be legitimate, attacking forces must adhere strictly to the rules that safeguard civilians. Under no circumstances can they carry out attacks which directly target civilians or are indiscriminate or disproportionate.

<...>

What is Amnesty International calling for from al-Gaddafi's Government?
Colonel al-Gaddafi must immediately rein in his security forces and end killings, enforced disappearances and other human rights violations.

He should disclose the names of all those whom his forces are holding and where they are held and allow international access to ensure their safety and well-being.

<...>

Senate passed resolution urging a no-fly zone

[pacalo]

7. There are atrocities going on all over the world, so where should the line be drawn?

It seems to me that whenever the U.S. involves itself with military action, the country has oil. Rwanda didn't get help from U.S. military; nor Uganda. Those countries have few natural resources, but there were no U.S. humanitarian efforts to prevent the atrocities of those people.

We can't afford costly military actions endlessly. This country wants to protect the oil sources with human blood, yet all of our oil companies are allowed loopholes that enable them to avoid paying income taxes & thus have no role in paying for extravagant military costs. Isn't that remarkable.

The U.S. should put the money it spends on military action in research for alternative energy sources & get away from oil.

[Change has come]

22. As predicted.

good job though! :thumbsup:

[Arkana]

6. What crap.

The atrocities committed by Gaddafi's henchmen are clear as day. Obama didn't have to "exaggerate" anything.

[Gravel Democrat]

9. "then what was the real reason?" History may have an answer...

Perhaps the best analysis of why US/NATO bombed Kosovo for 78 days and prophetic predictions...

Backing up Globalization with Military Might
New World Order Onslaught by Karen Talbot
Covert Action Quarterly, Issue 68, Fall 1999

"The U.S. and its NATO underlings undoubtedly will be vastly emboldened by their "success" in ensconcing themselves in Kosovo, Bosnia and the other remnants of Yugoslavia—Croatia, Slovenia and Macedonia. We can expect rapid steps to further fragment the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY). We can also expect the new mission of nuclear-armed NATO — intervening over so-called "humanitarian concerns" against sovereign nations—to be implemented elsewhere, with great speed, especially in the Caspian Sea/Caucuses areas of the former Soviet Union...

"...The ongoing media hype, including the unprecedented demonization of the Serbs, is designed to continue molding public opinion to accept the "justice" of the war. The unmistakable message is that the "Serbs got what they deserve." It also masterfully conceals, and therefore allows unimpeded momentum toward, the true goals behind the stepped-up saber-rattling of the world's super-power and its allies. This skillful disinformation campaign has been spectacularly successful in derailing sections of the traditional peace and progressive movement...

"...But, today, as never before, we need to tear away the mask of lies and disclose the real goals of this "new world order" imperialism and see clearly how it hurts workers and the poor within our own borders and globally. We need to see the ways in which military dominance increasingly works in close tandem with economic globalization, privatization and the drive for corporate super profits. This basic understanding is essential for paving the road to a powerful united worldwide resistence movement...

"...McDonald's Needs McDonnell Douglas to Flourish: An article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times entitled "What the World Needs Now" tells it all. Illustrated by an American Flag on a fist it said, among other things: "For globalism to work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is....The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist-McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps." (23)


A somewhat long and very detailed look at a US/NATO bombing "campaign" a decade ago. This is a must read for those trying to figure out why the US has started another war.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/448/backing-up-globalization-with-military-might

Libya is looking like a carbon copy of the 78 day bombing of Kosovo

***

http://costofwar.com

[sendero]

73. I'm still pretty damn sure..

... that the Serbs got what they deserved.

Iraq was completely unnecessary, Afghanistan is probably, at THIS POINT IN TIME, as waste of time but I support Obama's action in Libya.

The "war is always good" or "war is never necessary" extremes don't impress me as real thinking in the real world.

[Gman]

10. Those terrible weapons of mass destruction

and the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud.

Yeah, right.

[MedleyMisty]

11. self-delete

Decided it's not worth it, and that the agenda should be obvious to anyone who spends much time here.

[jimlup]

13. I'm still on the fence about Libya

but no, I'm sure that Obama didn't and didn't need to exaggerate Libyan atrocities. I strongly suspect that this blogger is a fool.

[EFerrari]

14. No Business Like War Business: Who Stands to Profit from Intervention in Libya?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x774277

[PurityOfEssence]

16. Interesting.

Hey, tough time to be a francophile...

[joshcryer]

18. Gaddafi's Blood-Soaked Hands

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/22/gaddafis-blood-soaked-hands/">Gaddafi's Blood-Soaked Hands
It was not long after he received a secret warning from the Italian government in April 1986 and narrowly escaped being blown to bits by American bombers that Muammar Gaddafi declared his intention to become Emperor of Africa. What followed as the increasingly erratic Gaddafi pursued his megalomaniacal dream was one of the most obscene and violent episodes in recent African history.

Drawing recruits from his terrorism camps, Gaddafi trained, armed and dispatched thugs like Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh to take power in West African countries, initiating the brutal slaughter of innocents in Liberia and Sierra Leone, says David M. Crane, the founding prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. “This was a long-term criminal conspiracy,” says Crane, who is now a professor at Syracuse University, and “ was the center point.”

For those who don't remember, here's a quick summary of the atrocities that took place in the war in Sierra Leone in the 1990s. In pursuit of diamonds, timber and gold, Sankoh, backed by Taylor, backed by Gaddafi, invaded Sierra Leone and instituted a campaign of terror, cutting off the arms and other body parts of civilians to frighten the country into compliance. Rape was a widespread weapon of war, and according to reporting by one human rights organization, Sankoh's troops played a game where they would bet on the sex of a baby being carried by a pregnant captive, then cut the fetus out of the woman to determine its gender.

Sankoh died in custody after the war ended; Taylor is currently being tried by the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Gaddafi is named in Taylor's indictment, and Taylor has testified to Gaddafi's involvement. Crane says he found evidence that when Sankoh invaded Sierra Leone, “Libyan special forces were there helping train and assist them tactically and there were Libyan arms in that invasion: he had been involved from the get go.”

Massimo Calabresi's coverage of Libya is mediocre at best, he barely followed it and only started chiming when the UN got involved. The International Criminal Court has enough to take down Gaddafi's entire cabinet. I believe Calabresi is out of touch with what is happening in Libya.

[Turborama]

25. That Time article does read like it was written by someone who hasn't been paying attention

This will probably be largely ignored by people who still don't want to pay any attention to what has been/is going on: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=777237&mesg_id=779651

[PurityOfEssence]

33. Here's Time's Press kit bio of Massimo Calabresi: he's a real pro

He's been all over this story, too, so he's hardly unaware of the details.

http://www.timemediakit.com/us/media/bios/calabresi.html

[joshcryer]

34. He didn't do one article about Gaddafi's Feb 17 killings. Not one article about the disappearances.

Spare me. The guy is clearly out of touch. The President was acting under UN authority.

[Turborama]

36. "That Time article" (Gaddafi's Blood-Soaked Hands) was written by Calabresi.

I guess he's not the only one who hasn't been paying attention.

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/22/gaddafis-blood-soaked-hands/

Where are his articles about what has happened in Zawiyah, Zinten, Misrata etc?

He seems to be more worried about what Gingrich thinks:

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/28/does-gingrich-support-intervening-in-libya/

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/03/25/gingrich-in-2005-it-is-critical-the-world-act-to-stop-mass-killings/

Which shows where his loyalties lie.

I get a lot of pontification from his articles, but not much else.

[Democat]

19. The same Time Magazine that probably supported the Iraq war.

Could the media be any more transparent in their support for the Republican party?

[Spider Jerusalem]

20. You DO realise that this was the UN Security Council?

Led by Britain and France? And not by the US?

And also that Gaddafi's troops were advancing on Benghazi with an armoured column and artillery? And that Gaddafi himself was on TV saying "we will go from house to house, and we will show no mercy?" You were aware of these things, yes? That is sufficient justification for intervention given the principle of "responsibility to protect".

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Then say that, instead of inflating.

The Obama Team is VERY good at hitting back, so it's quite telling when they don't. This is still a very fresh story, so perhaps they will; at this point, the burden of proof is on Mr. Calabresi.

We shall see.

Let's note that the accusations (correct ones, as I can show) of this operation being in violation of the War Powers Act and of the UN Participation Act have NOT been addressed in the slightest by the Obama Administration, and I find that damning. Their general modus operandi is to respond much like Bill Clinton used to: immediately and clearly. They obviously have every intention of denying Congress its Enumerated Power of deciding to initiate war.

If this blustering of threats is sufficient to whip up the bloodlust or outrage for war, then that should have been what was asked. If any of the accusations are unfounded, then they are dishonesty of the worst sort: that which would lead to war.

[Turborama]

21. Here's some evidence of atrocities carried out even before the imminent Benghazi massacre....

Warning this video report contains graphic imagery, including wounded children (plus footage from inside an ambulance that's being fired upon):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkaAXDTLhsw">The Battle for Zawiyah

Alex Crawford, the reporter who filmed the above, being interviewed by Anderson Cooper about what she witnessed while she was there.

Part 1 "in this town, they are 99 percent civilians": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC4e0qbAs2Y

Part 2 "if that isn't a massacre, I really don't know what is": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymCYt-UP6XE

Here's the transcript: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1103/09/acd.01.html

If/when Gaddafi finally stands trial for crimes against humanity and/or war crines, Alex Crawford will be a key witness.

Third parties were not allowed into Zawiya for days until the 'cleansing' had been completed...

http://blogs.channel4.com/world-news-blog/rebel-graves-bulldozed-over-in-zawiyah">Rebel Graves Bulldozed Over In Zawiyah

http://www.channel4.com/news/gaddafis-forces-erase-all-traces-of-rebels-in-zawiyah">Gaddafis Forces Erase All Traces Of Rebels In Zawiyah


Additionally, here's some footage of unarmed civilians being slaughtered when it all started in February.

Warning, contains graphic imagery:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN9-55MstMs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAAtfvoneak

BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12518710">Libya doctor: 'Protests spreading amid massacre'

Al Jazeera English: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=385&topic_id=554439">Police Fire Live Rounds At Protesters In Benghazi, Libya (Graphic)

If that's not enough, do some searching on YouTube and you'll see a lot more evidence of unarmed civilians being massacred by Gaddafi's mercenaries.

[joshcryer]

26. Good stuff, Alex Crawford is a hero.

That same shit is going on in Zinten and Misrata even as we speak.

I guarantee you when this shit is all over and done with a lot of anti-intervention / anti-rebels are going to be shocked with what is discovered. And it breaks my heart.

[Turborama]

27. People can have sooo much fun with conspiracy theories made up out of whole cloth. Facts are boring.

It breaks my heart, too.

I swear, it feels like I'm visiting Infowars sometimes

[PurityOfEssence]

66. Thanks for this, but it's still problematic: some are armed, and they approach deployed troops

It's very late, and I have only seen the first two clips. Yes, this is military oppression, but there are armed men in this crowd, and the crowd is approaching a military unit with what she says are a half-dozen or so poorly armed men at the front. Look, if you're approaching a military unit and some of the people at the very front are armed, you're not completely innocent. It's reckless.

Admittedly, this is not one of the first demonstrations, so I don't know if those were with fully unarmed people, but even though most are unarmed here, there's a 3-man team with a heavy machine gun at 6:47. Scrub forward on the video and see it there; it's a whopper of a heavy infantry weapon this innocent civilian group has in its midst. Anyone marching in that crowd has made his/her choice if that's there.

The emotions of people trying to throw off an oppressive regime are not to be disregarded, but when they march, chanting into a military unit set up in the street and some of the ones up front are armed--one literally with an AK-47--they're not "innocent civilians" anymore, and those who are in the group are taking a huge risk. Security forces, when confronted with weapons will fire. They'll do that here.

If one takes up arms against one's government, one needs to bear some responsibility for the result. That doesn't justify firing at ambulances, but I see one man brandishing a gun very close to an ambulance, so that's not too damned bright, either; it's practice in military engagements to not have offensive weapons around ambulances, or have some responsibility for the result.

One of the shots we see repeated is a man in an obvious military uniform; presumably he's one of the rebels, but is he? If so, aren't those military fatigues? Is this a government casualty?

Here are other quotes that are true examples of the lack of understanding for what the consequences are for taking up arms against one's government, regardless how oppressive they may be:

CRAWFORD: They were all civilians. I didn't see anyone in army fatigues or army uniforms or anything. They were just this huge body of people, children amongst them.

COOPER: We're looking at the video right now. Essentially, they were marching, it looks like, for the most part unarmed and then just got fired upon.

CRAWFORD: Yes, there were a few people, very few people, I would say about half a dozen people, at the head of the group who had -- one person on the car, for instance, had a pistol. One person who was wandering along the side had Kalashnikov slung over his shoulder.

But mostly, the huge majority were just civilians walking, were unarmed, and they were just chanting anti-Gadhafi slogans and calling on him to leave. They walked -- they were marching towards the military lines that had been set up. A tank was in front of (AUDIO GAP) and a number of military vehicles.

Look, I admire the moxie, but that's just reckless, and this can hardly be seen as innocent civilians just being mowed down: some of them are armed, and they're marching right up to deployed military vehicles with arms drawn. What did they expect? How on earth can this group be called simply and shrilly "civilians" when some of them, at the head, are armed, and there's at least one heavy-machine gun on a tripod with a three-man team being deployed?

If people are going to take arms and go out onto the street to face armed troops, do they not deserve some of the responsibility for taking children with them? What the fuck is this concept of "innocent armed civilians approaching armed troops"?

My sympathies are very torn in this situation: obviously, there's a real hunger for throwing off this regime, but the misrepresentation is still very, very wrong.

Here's a real capper for the not-clear-on-the-concept concept. The person she's talking about is brave and all that, but NOT an innocent civilian. That's just biased hysteria.

CRAWFORD: They are young men. I saw one young man who looks he was -- he might be a university student, if he was living in Britain or America.

He had glasses on. He was wearing a T-shirt and jeans. He didn't look at all like a soldier. He was being shown at the last minute as these tanks were rolling into the square how to use a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. And someone was saying, put it on your shoulder, put it on your shoulder. Just try to kneel a bit and just fire. And he says Allahu akbar and goes off to fight and probably is not alive now. This is -- these are civilians. So, I don't know what -- if that isn't a massacre, I really don't know what is.

Brave, yes. Obviously driven by some true deep feeling--maybe that Allah guy I keep hearing about so much--but definitely not a "civilian".

I appreciate the time you took to compile this, and will look at every bit of it, although my day is very full tomorrow. You care, took the effort, and you and the truth of the situation deserves this since I have elected to engage in this discussion. I still haven't seen any massacres of civilians, and this is simply NOT what it's being purported to be. It's heartbreaking and visceral, but reckless to the extreme.

[Turborama]

77. Thanks for your reply. I'll wait until you've watched/read everything and responded to it all

Before responding in full.

However, I don't call civilians taking up arms to defend their city from their brutal and psychopathic dictator's mercenaries "reckless". Desperate, yes. "Reckless" is just too contemptuous as far as I'm concerned, considering everything they have had to endure over the past 42 years. I see them through the lens of fighting for their freedom, much like revolutionaries did in America way back when.

FYI The men in military uniform are most probably defectors from the regular army, of which there were many at the beginning of this in February.

To be honest, if after everything you have seen/read in the post above and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=777237&mesg_id=780008">here you still think a paragraph in Time magazine discounts all the atrocities that have happened to Libyan citizens since this started I honestly don't think we have anything further to discuss.

Thanks again for the respectful and lengthy reply, though. They're far and few between these days.

[PurityOfEssence]

79. I will not be able to respond further until after 11 pm Pacific, but this is NOT peaceful protest

I have about 30 minutes right now to post on a couple of other threads and do some reading, then a very busy work day.

We probably can't come to some kind of resolution, but keeping dialogue open is refreshing in light of the binary approach that's going on here. To re-state: I don't say that Qaddafi's a great guy, nor that he may have had his people fire on unarmed civilians; I just haven't seen that footage yet, and will attempt to see all that I can. My REAL beef is with our President's illegal imperial adventurism and the deception that was used throughout all this to describe our involvement as purely humanitarian in nature and only dealing with protecting the innocent.

This being your first cited incident, I'm led to believe it's one of the best.

The eye of the beholder sees what it wants to see; to some, this is a demonstration of downtrodden subjects being cruelly fired upon by troops, but to others, it is a small group of armed rebels using a huge human shield of civilians to directly assault a military roadblock out in the open and in the bright light of day.

There's a HEAVY MACHINE GUN THERE. That's serious firepower; it's termed as "heavy weapons" in infantry parlance. The few with guns are clearly stated to be in the front, as they lead the crowd to an emplacement of troops; the CROWD is attacking. They are literally the ones here who are leading an attack, unless they're marching to put flowers in the guns. How is that an example of cruel oppressors firing on an unarmed, peaceful protest? That's what's been overwhelmingly shouted in our face.

You do not characterize this as a peaceful protest, do you? They ARE attempting to overrun the military position, right? The soldiers can presumably see the weapons, right? The Heavy Machine gun, when seen, is fully loaded and being withdrawn from fairly near the troops; one could infer that the troops saw this, too, right? What about the moral responsibility of the rebels to not bring children into this encounter? Is there not at least the brandishing of weapons from around the ambulance?

This is what disgusts me about people who claim the moral high-ground: they often absolve themselves from any sense of fair objectivity, as is being done here. I would literally say that the unarmed protesters may have started being unaware of their armed comrades, but the armed insurgents here are literally USING THEIR UNARMED FELLOW PROTESTERS AS HUMAN SHIELDS. Can you come up with a better euphemism for this? They KNOW they're unarmed, and yet they lead them at a roadblock of armed military. Am I supposed to like these people who would so willingly have children accompany them into combat? Please address this; it's important.

The reporter herself says that she was almost knocked down by the surge of humanity; what is a soldier manning a roadblock to see this as? Military history teaches us that numbers win. What are they shouting? How much of this "God is Great" shouting (like the innocent civilian with the anti-tank weapon) was going on? Personally, that'd scare the snot out of me. The sheer numbers would, too. You and others characterize this as "innocent civilians" and a "peaceful protest", and it's anything but, complete with infantry heavy weapons. (Well, at least ONE, I'm not going to pluralize everything like Barack Obama in an attempt to mislead.)

What are they chanting? You DO concede that they're ATTACKING the soldiers, right? It's right there on screen. That's not even close. Do they have the RIGHT to overrun the troops? Do the troops not have the right to shoot when attacked? Do they not have a right to pursue those who attack them?

God is great.

Do you still see this without ANY guilt on the part of the mob? Is this still the mowing down of acres of sweet hippies who are swaying to the anthem of love? What right have you and others to deliberately distort situations like these to sway others?

Perhaps the other clips will show something more supportive, and I assure you I'll review them at first opportunity. Truth is important; it's all we really have in this world.

[Turborama]

23. Gaddafi regime ordered to appear before Africa's highest court -"massive violations of human rights"

Source: The Guardian

Owen Bowcott and Maya Wolfe-Robinson | Wednesday March 30 2011 21.44 BST

Gaddafi's regime has been ordered to appear before Africa's highest court to face charges of "massive violations of human rights" for killing peaceful demonstrators in the early days of the uprising.

The announcement from the African court on human and peoples' rights in Arusha, Tanzania, is likely to be welcomed by the Nato coalition as a significant sign of international support.

The "order for provisional measures" issued by the court unanimously declares that the "government of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" must immediately refrain from any action that would result in loss of life or breach human rights. It also summons the Tripoli regime to appear before the court within 15 days to explain what measures have been taken to implement the order.

The African court on human and peoples' rights is the continent's equivalent of the European court of human rights. The legal action has been initiated by another continental body, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights.

Full article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/30/gaddafi-regime-africa-court

This is unheard of and DESPICABLE treatment for the KING OF AFRICA to have to endure.

He was crowned TWICE! FFS!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7588033.stm">Gaddafi: Africa's 'king of kings'


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4698550">Gaddafi declared ‘King of Africa’ by Kenyan elders


LEAVE MUAMMAR (AND HIS SONS) ALONE!

[inna]

24. .

"the rehabilitators convinced Obama to go to war not just to prevent atrocities Gaddafi might (or might not) commit but also to bolster America's ability to intervene elsewhere in the future."

Oy indeed. :crazy:



wtf is "the rehabilitators", btw?

(never mind, answered my own question once finished reading the OP.)

[Keith Bee]

28. So?

Is anyone even surprised by this anymore?

[Amonester]

29. I thank the almighty (who ever) it's not McCain who is in charge.....

It would simply be the end of world.

[leftstreet]

31. Not only that, he wanted to mandate health insurance payments n/t

[Hannah Bell]

48. but mccain along with lieberman were pushing for intervention in libya within

a week of the start of the "rebellion".

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mccain-and-lieberman-libya_552337.html

[Amonester]

59. Better to have him just 'pushing' than 'doing' if you ask me.... nt

[Distant Observer]

30. A massive INFORMATION OPERATION has been authorized and executed -- by the Western Powers

and allies, not just "Obama lies."

They know what they are doing.

[Amonester]

32. Except the Soviet Union went "quietly".

The rich megalomaniacs will have to go away someday (the big majority of the ME population is under 30...), but they want to loot more. In fact, they don't know how life looks like without looting, torturing, and murdering.

[indimuse]

38. Well..2 years ago..

Gaddafi sat 2 eats away from Obama at a state dinner..why?

Libya is one of the most advanced developing countries, ranking 53 on the UN Human Development Index, making it the most developed society in Africa. Libya ranks ahead of Russia (65), Ukraine (69), Brazil (73), Venezuela (75) and Tunisia (81).



The rate of incarceration is 61st in the world, below that of the Czech Republic, and far below that of the United States (1). Longevity has increased by 20 years under Qaddafi’s rule. Qaddafi, while suppressing political challenges, had shared the nation’s oil income better than the rest of OPEC.



This is about oil and more..

[Turborama]

42. Yeah, Gaddafi is a benign dictator with a heart of gold and Libya has been a fucking utopia.

Here's a list of Human Rights Watch reports on Libya: http://www.hrw.org/en/by-issue/publications/232

Their Libya homepage: http://www.hrw.org/en/middle-eastn-africa/libya

Events of 2 years ago sparked current uprising in Libya
A group of families in Benghazi took to the streets two years ago, laying the foundation for the current revolt
by Jo Becker
Published in: Global Post
MARCH 11, 2011
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2011/03/11/events-2-years-ag...

In fact, what happened 2 years ago was related to something that happened 15 years ago...

Libya: June 1996 Killings at Abu Salim Prison
JUNE 27, 2006
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/06/27/libya-june-1996-k...

(Image is a live link to the article)
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE19/011/2011/en/5a97c7df-aee8-4830-9f2b-d54f805d2dc1/mde190112011en.html">

Drawing recruits from his terrorism camps, Gaddafi trained, armed and dispatched thugs like Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh to take power in West African countries, initiating the brutal slaughter of innocents in Liberia and Sierra Leone, says David M. Crane, the founding prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. “This was a long-term criminal conspiracy,” says Crane, who is now a professor at Syracuse University, and “ was the center point.”

For those who don't remember, here's a quick summary of the atrocities that took place in the war in Sierra Leone in the 1990s. In pursuit of diamonds, timber and gold, Sankoh, backed by Taylor, backed by Gaddafi, invaded Sierra Leone and instituted a campaign of terror, cutting off the arms and other body parts of civilians to frighten the country into compliance. Rape was a widespread weapon of war, and according to reporting by one human rights organization, Sankoh's troops played a game where they would bet on the sex of a baby being carried by a pregnant captive, then cut the fetus out of the woman to determine its gender.


Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/22/gaddafis-blood-soaked-hands/#ixzz1IAJ5JC97

:banghead:

[joshcryer]

45. Wikileaks Central also weighed heavily on this back on Feb 17:

http://wlcentral.org/node/1320

It's an extremely insightful article, if not prophetic.

[EFerrari]

47. Human Rights Watch lost their credibility on Libya

when Malinowski politicized his human rights mission. You remember that, you posted his piece asking why Obama wasn't getting more credit.

[Turborama]

49. No, they lost credibility to you because you didn't like. I posted that to you and got no response.

I was asking you a question, still waiting for the answer: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4790867&mesg_id=4793034

One article written as an editorial discredits all the research and reports a whole organization has been doing for several years?

Wow, way to conveniently ignore the enormous weight of evidence proving the brutality of Gaddafi's regime.

[EFerrari]

54. You have no idea what I like. Malinowski is a PR flak.

And HRW does politicize what should be human rights missions. This isn't the first time and it won't be the last time.

And you misread my post. I didn't say HRW hadn't written anything about Libya before. I meant that all of a sudden, it was popular to be concerned about Libya even though Gaddafi has been himself for decades.

[Turborama]

62. You didn't like the HRW guy's article and henceforth HRW is "discredited". In your own words.

No, it's not "all of a sudden". You didn't got to those links. They have been writing reports on what's been going on in Libya for several years.

[EFerrari]

63. I haven't "liked" HRW for quite a while and have published about that.

And I repeat, I didn't say HRW had suddenly become interested in Libya. I was talking about the public in general and DU in particular.

[Turborama]

64. OK, fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree about HRW. I agree on your last point, though

I have witnessed it myself: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=777237&mesg_id=780008

[EFerrari]

67. I stopped trusting HRW reflexively when they released a report on Venezuela

five months early in order to get it out a head of an election there. And after a bit of research, I found that the LatAm director had a habit of sticking his oar into political matters at sensitive times. So, it isn't a big surprise to see what looks to me like similar behavior now on Libya. I'm sure there are good people there who do a good job. Their leadership, imo, undermines their core mission with politicking in support of the State Department.

Similarly, I don't think that Gaddafi should get a pass or that civilians should be left at the mercy of a homicidal government. But I don't buy the story I'm getting about Libya from this White House, from our media, from the Brits or from the French. There is a deal going down. I'm afraid this cure will be worse than the disease and I hope that not too many Libyans will be freed from their lives on earth by our "intervention".

[Turborama]

74. As I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree about HRW's stance on Libya.

The whys and wherefores about a report they wrote about Venezuela is a red herring, as far as I am concerned. It doesn't discount or refute any of the research they have carried out on Libya over the past several years.

Let's just leave it at that, yeah?

I have been watching what's been unfolding in Libya from the get-go and am glad that Gaddafi's sadistic and homicidal forces were stopped DURING their assault on Benghazi, I wish it had happened when Zawiyah was going on though.

If this goes all pear shaped and horribly wrong because of our intervention I will be one of the 1st to hold my hands up and admit I was wrong. Until then, I will be giving my support to the freedom fighters there and everywhere else - as http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=768720&mesg_id=771604">I did with Tunisia from the get go.

(edited to fix typo)

[Runework]

50. US has never trained death squads?

"Drawing recruits from his terrorism camps, Gaddafi trained, armed and dispatched thugs like Charles Taylor and Foday Sankoh to take power in West African countries, initiating the brutal slaughter of innocents in Liberia and Sierra Leone"

You never heard of the School of Americas? trained 60,000 torturers and killers, deposited in Central America, East Timor etc...

the US is killing afghani and pakistani civilians right now...what the hell gives this country the high moral ground to do anything? seriously?

[Turborama]

52. So, because the US has done things it gives Gaddafi a free pass?

Twisted logic at its finest.

[Runework]

56. lol "has done things"

It means you shouldn't implicitly trust the foreign policy of the us, and it's abysmal naivete to take at blank face value what is claimed by any Us President regarding military action. The US collaborates, trains, funds nations that torture and kill their citizens, right now. Ought to clean up its own house before meddling in others.

[Turborama]

61. So, you're giving a Gaddafi a free pass, then? n/t

[Runework]

65. Im not in the position to give passes or not

this isn't a great analogy but- we could easily get rid of all civil liberty protections and net more criminals, thus stopping rapes or murders. it could be out of morality, or it could be in the service of a police state, but would you want to pay that cost?

see? not so simple

I could tell you you're giving Uzbekistan a free pass to boil alive its citizens, Obama has been making moves to reestablish better relations with them. What would saying that accomplish?

Im going to assume you were opposed to the Iraq war (if Im wrong correct me). Were you giving Saddam a free pass for everything he did and would do? Just do some research , he killed more people than Kadafi.

[Turborama]

70. I was against both Iraq wars. Anyway, I was talking about Gaddafi, as he's the subject of discussion

This derailing has failed to disprove my original point in response to the rosy picture that was being painted about Libya.

[indimuse]

71. No..the *twist in logic* is..

Starting and supporting a war that has been on the table for many years then calling it a * humanitarian* rescue! You don't rescue people with bombs and foot soldiers...we are creating another Iraq! Insurgents! Rebels! Al Qaeda! Our soldiers..Their soldiers! Civilians.. who's who???

Ask yourself...WHERE DID THE PROTESTERS GET THEIR VERY ARTFUL ENGLISH SIGNS?? They were MEANT for you to see...


I bet you...we have a few sharp shooter who could have taken out this bastard IF THAT were the objective! ya think???

[Turborama]

75. The US didn't start this.

As I pointed out to you, the genesis of this was 15 years in the making: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=777237&mesg_id=779935

Show me evidence of US involvement in this, please: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=777237&mesg_id=780008

[meow mix]

39. Unrec

ghadaffi thanks you

[AtomicKitten]

57. Let's see, atrocities have been documented via multimedia

and threats were made to annihilate Benghazi - "no mercy on the rats" -
but, hey, if you read otherwise on a blog ...

[KittyWampus]

82. all that documentation was planted by the CIA to benefit the oil corporations

:sarcasm:

[dipsydoodle]

68. K & R

For a sense of balance.

[pampango]

69. What if the outrages weren't "sufficient" but made credible the threat of future "sufficient"

outrages like a prospective civilian slaughter in Benghazi? Can the UN not act to prevent potential war crimes or must it wait until sufficient evidence of past war crimes has been evaluated? Obama seems to have acted to authorize US participation in collective action to prevent a civilian slaughter, not to punish Gaddafi for proven past slaughters.

"Obama and his aides know they are taking a big risk. “It's a huge gamble,” says the senior administration official. The administration knows, for example, that al Qaeda, which has active cells in Libya, will try to exploit the power vacuum that will come with a weak or ousted Gaddafi. They also know that the U.S. will have to rely on other countries for the crucial task of rebuilding Libya and that the region may in fact be further destabilized by intervention. Outweighing that, the National Security Council's Ben Rhodes says, are the long-term benefits of saving lives, protecting the possibility of democratic change elsewhere in the region and—tellingly—ensuring “the ability of collective action to be a tool in circumstances like this.”

One of the strongest voices in America for the idea of collective action (not unilateral) to prevent war crimes is Samantha Power, a senior director at the National Security Council. In late 2006, Power told me that international humanitarian intervention had been "killed for a generation" by the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Then a professor at Harvard best known for her Pulitzer prize-winning history of America's response to genocide (a book she wrote after covering the wars in Bosnia and Croatia and studying the genocide in Rwanda) Power was a strong believer in international intervention to prevent war crimes. Like many others, she was frustrated that the cause of preventing genocide had been undermined by George W. Bush's unilateral intervention in Iraq, which discredited U.S. military action abroad and made building coalitions to stop war crimes seemingly impossible.

But the Libyan uprising gave the humanitarian interventionists an unexpected reprieve. The universal hatred of Gaddafi in the Arab world, Europe's energy interests, fears of regional instability and the backdrop of Arab democratic uprisings provided interventionists in Washington unlikely allies at home and abroad. Power has argued from the start of the Libyan uprising that the U.S. needed to be prepared to intervene to prevent humanitarian atrocities. She was joined in this argument by Susan Rice, Obama's ambassador to the United Nations who was in the Clinton administration during the Rwanda genocide.

Obama has espoused the interventionists' position in the past. In his Nobel peace prize acceptance speech, he said, “More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region. I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.”

The next day, Obama said the U.S. was intervening in Libya not just to prevent attacks by Gaddafi on civilians but to set a precedent. If Gaddafi were not stopped, he said, “the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.” Maybe the administration will get lucky: intervention could set Libya on the road to democratic development and help continue the political change sweeping the region. Most importantly for the rehabilitators, perhaps it will bring new credibility for the idea of humanitarian intervention. But even those administration officials who most want to see the return of humanitarian intervention realize how big the stakes are. “I'm praying that this works,” says one.

It sounds to me like Obama sided with the humanitarian interventionists in the administration and against the military ("Gates tried to stop it.") No one was arguing for unilateral US humanitarian intervention in Libya. They are backing collective (UN) action to give force to the Responsibility to Protect civilians that was adopted in 2005. If any Security Council member had vetoed Resolution 1973 (as China and Russia did regarding Burma in 2007), Gaddafi would have crushed the revolution by now. No one knows whether he would have followed through on his threats to seek retribution on the opposition in Benghazi.

Obviously Obama believes in the concept of collective action to prevent war crimes, not just to punish past crimes. (The story makes no claim that Obama would have authorized unilateral US action, if the UN resolution had failed.) I believe this is good policy and understand why the UN adopted it. I can understand that others may believe that UN action to prevent something bad that might happen is different from similar action to punish proven past crimes gives the UN too much discretion in conducting humanitarian interventions.

At any rate, collective action is much preferable to unilateral by individual countries (as in Iraq). I'm glad that it was the UN that authorized this action and not a single country, e.g. the UK, France or the US. I hope that the concept of collective humanitarian action gains enough credibility that unilateral intervention becomes an increasingly suspect practice. We've got a long way to go before that happens, but the longest journey begins ...

[sofa king]

72. Chimpeach! Oh, wait a minute....

[Distant Observer]

76. The Crime was the Engineering of the Civil War as a pretext for "cirminalizing" the regime

It was effectively done, but truly immoral.

[somone]

78. Gotta bring the untamed fire of freedom to the darkest corners of our world

[KittyWampus]

81. And some people think Milosevic was a great guy.

[Distant Observer]

83. Obama Did Not Need To. International Propaganda machine has been at work for decades.

Everything Gaddafi does, good or evil,is depicted in the most monstrous way possible.

The guy has go to learn to get along.